Evening Standard Comment: Women should be able to serve on the front line

Today's news that women may serve in British Army infantry units from 2016 will draw predictable controversy. A Ministry of Defence review has concluded that women’s presence in close combat situations in the Army would have no adverse effect on units’ cohesion, as some critics claim. Now there will be a further study of women’s ability to withstand the physical challenges of such front-line duty, though Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has said that Army roles “should be determined by ability and not gender”.

At present, almost 10 per cent of the armed forces are women; the proportion in the Army, 8,010 female personnel, is slightly lower. They have been kept out of the front line to date because of fears that male soldiers would be more likely to protect female colleagues in combat, while the presence of the opposite sex would be a distraction. Such charges are debunked by this report. Likewise there can be no serious argument that women lack the “killer instinct” that is said to be necessary: some women and men are suited for such challenges and others of both sexes are not.

The physical demands of infantry fighting are more serious. Soldiers have to complete an annual fitness assessment in which they have to carry a 25kg pack, rifle and helmet over just under eight miles in two hours; in combat, burdened with ammunition and supplies, infantry soldiers frequently have to carry much heavier loads. Yet other militaries across the world have had front-line female troops for years, notably Israel and the US, while more recently we have seen female Kurdish Peshmerga soldiers fighting bravely against IS guerrillas in Syria. Female front-line troops are an innovation that the Army and the rest of society will get used to quickly: like other victories for equality, in future it will be hard to understand why anyone ever made a fuss about it.

Serious reading

The news that HarperCollins is cutting back on celebrity memoirs may mark the start of a sea change in book publishing. Charlie Redmayne, the publisher’s UK chief executive, says he has cut back on the number of such autobiographies he is buying up, as they are often too risky and expensive. Celebrity autobiographies used to be a mainstay of the industry’s revenues, especially at Christmas. But sales of biographies and autobigraphies are reportedly down four per cent this year: recent flops include memoirs by Hillary Clinton and Julian Assange, as well as Pippa Middleton’s dire party-planning book.

Clearly there is still an appetite for some such celebrity fare: former Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson’s book has sold nearly 700,000 copies. Meanwhile vlogger Zoella, aka Zoe Sugg, has scored a hit with Girl Online, a novel whose sales are built on her online fame. But if we are turning away from celebrity gossip to other literature, that’s fine — as long as people are still reading.

Bridge of dreams

The Mayor’s announcement today giving the final go-ahead to Thomas Heatherwick’s “garden bridge” over the Thames at the Strand is good news for a positive project. The bridge will be not just another Thames crossing but a park where both Londoners and tourists can linger. It now needs a reported £65 million in private donations in order for construction to start; it is projected to open in summer 2018. Here is a worthy cause for Londoners and companies alike to contribute to: a beautiful bridge to delight this city for generations to come.